Showing posts with label 1928. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1928. Show all posts

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Storm Over Asia (Potomok Chingis-Khana) 1928 **


George Clooney, Richard Gere, Paul Newman—all silver foxes that I would gladly use for warmth. Granted, Newman would have to be resurrected to the Hud years, but you get the point. So, what do grey foxes have to do with this 1928 Vsevolod Pudovkin silent film? Read on…

Valeri Inkizhinov plays a rural Mongolian trapper and descendant of Genghis Khan who becomes a pawn of British Imperialism. After his father falls ill, Inkizhinov is given a talisman by his mother for protection on his trip to the western fur market. Here he is offered a meager amount for a very valuable silver fox, which causes Inkizhinov to lose his temper and get into a fight with a merchant. This causes Inkizhinov to have to flee to the mountains and join other partisans.

Two years later Inkizhinov is caught by the British army and is sentenced to death after recognizing the word Moscow. Just as he’s about to be shot, someone reads the characters on his talisman and declares Inkizhinov a descendant of Genghis Khan. The British decide to use this to their advantage and make Inkizhinov a puppet ruler. BIG MISTAKE. Inkizhinov uses his power to unify the local chiefs and forms a revolutionary army and rids Mongolia of British occupation.

Perhaps you are not that familiar with Pudovkin—his contemporaries, Eisenstein and Vertov, are better known—but he made a number of visually stunning films, like The End of St. Petersburg. Like all Soviet directors, he focuses on revolutionary elements in this film. Imperialistic and capitalistic exploitation are constantly under attack here.

This was the first film made in Mongolia. The way Pudovkin filmed the steppe scenes is impressive. This is very rugged terrain and it shows in the cinematography. The film almost looks like a documentary. The closing battle scene, where the cavalry fans out to fill the entire horizon, is quite remarkable.

The story is captivating. Who doesn’t root for the underdog? This combined with the spectacular images captured by cinematographer Anatoll Golovnya makes this a very watchable film.

Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928) **


Please do not watch this film if you've ever been on a cruise ship attacked by Somali pirates--the sight of the Stonewall Jackson might trigger your PTSD.

Buster Keaton plays Willie Canfield, the son of Steamboat Bill, captain of the dilapidated Stonewall Jackson. Bill is facing hard times as his rival, J.J. King, is driving him out of business with his newer (and no doubt safer) steamboat. When Bill gets a telegram from his son, whom he hasn’t seen in years, he hopes that his returning son will be able to help him fight off King. What he gets is a refugee from a Parisian café—berets, pencil mustaches, and ukuleles were evidently the vogue at Harvard in the 1920s. Quickly taken to the local barbershop, Willie meets an old friend from Boston—Mr. King’s daughter. Surprised? If this sounds familiar to you think Our Hospitality, an earlier Keaton film.

The fathers may not like one another but the children do. This creates a problem, as neither father wants their child involved with the other. So in order to see one another they have to arrange a secret rendezvous. What ensues is standard Keaton, as he tries unsuccessfully to see his beloved on her father’s boat.

After buying his son a train ticket back to Boston, Bill gets into a fight with King over his boat being condemned. This lands Bill in jail and keeps Willie from going back to Boston. As a means of breaking his pop out of jail Willie bakes a loaf of bread big enough to both feed King Kong and hide several tools—which are discovered by the sheriff, who then attempts to lock Willie up too. A surprising punch to the gut later and Willie breaks the old man out. Too bad Willie’s an idiot and gets his clothes caught in the cell door. He’s promptly knocked on the head and sent to the hospital.

While Willie’s in hospital, a cyclone hits River Junction. This provides the most impressive sequences of the film. The high winds produced for these scenes most have been significant. Building facades are torn down and cars are moved by the wind. Of course the most famous scenes are where the buildings fall down on or around Keaton and he is narrowly saved by a door or window cutout. In other scenes there are pre-Matrix images of Keaton suspended in motion due to the force of the wind. In addition, he rides a flying tree from ground to river. In the end, he used the Stonewall Jackson to save his father, his girl, and her father from drowning—and for good measure he fishes out a minister to marry them.

This was Keaton’s last "great" film. It is not my favorite Keaton film, but the cyclone scenes are worthy of being admired. My main issue with the film is I think Keaton could have done a bit more in the first half of the picture. Nonetheless, this is an entertaining film to watch.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (La passion de Jeanne d'Arc) 1928 **1/2

It may just be me, but if God contacted me in my teen years and asked me to take on an entire nation and then be burned at the stake I may have asked the most pertinent teenage question ever uttered: WHY? Then I would have smoked a joint and forgot everything he said.

Carl Theodor Dreyer directs this 1928 silent classic starring Maria Falconetti as Joan of Arc. Considered Dreyer’s masterpiece, the film chronicles the 1431 trial and execution of the Maid of Orleans. Instead of working from a screenplay Dreyer chose to use the actual trial transcripts as his treatment. The story is quite simple: Joan believes God has asked her to lead an army to rid the French of the English…today he’d just ask her to blow up the Chunnel and poison all the beignets. Anyway, after being captured she endures her passion—interrogations, torture, and excommunication. The scenes where she is denied communion unless she recants and where the crowd convinces her to recant are quite compelling. Because Dreyer shot most of these scenes in extreme close-up the viewer is almost forced to share Joan’s overwhelming anguish. In the end, Joan is burned at the stake in the courtyard of Rouen Castle and you feel as though you yourself have shared her fate.

This film is emotionally draining. Dreyer manipulates the emotions of the viewer through his use of close-ups and constant film cuts (1,500+). The use of contrast and angles are severe. Extremely bright lighting is used to shoot the makeup-less faces of the inquisitors. They appear sickly and menacing at the same time. Dreyer uses a grayish light when he shoots Falconetti, which makes her seem somber and ethereal. The face and the emotions and motives that it displays is what Dreyer focuses on.

Falconetti never made another film. Perhaps it was the shaved head and no makeup—maybe the world wasn’t ready yet for Sinead O’Connor. Whatever may be the case, she is very good in this role. She exhibits just the right mixture of piety, naivety, and torment.

I find it interesting that the only surviving original print of the film was found in a Norwegian asylum in the 1980s. Call me crazy, but I don’t know that this film falls under the category of emotional therapy. Still, the film is impressive. I wouldn’t recommend it as a date night film, but it is very well done.

An Andalusian Dog (Un Chien Andalou) 1928 :(((


Above you see the French and English titles for this 1928 silent directed by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali. However, my personal title for this film is: 16 Minutes of Your Life That You’ll Never Get Back.

Another film class must (at least that’s what the professors think); this surrealist film bombards viewers with a cornucopia of shocking images. Viewers are treated to a woman's eye being cut open with a razor blade; a man with a hole in his hand that is filled with ants, who hauls dead donkeys and live priests in grand pianos; severed hands poked at with canes; and, other nonsensical images.

There is no narrative to this film. The images are random and disconnected from one another. I’m sure more artsy people can identify themes in these images, but I have no desire to figure out which one represents love, lust, life, and death. I am not a Freudian and I have no inclination to use free association to decipher what the hell this film is supposed to represent other than avant-garde filmmaking at its height. It does not shock me that the "stars" of this film later committed suicide—one burned herself to death in a public square—because this film could drive anyone crazy.

This is one film that I could easily have done without seeing before my death.

The Docks of New York (1928) **1/2


Suicide or marriage… the choice between a quick or slow death—you can quote me.

Josef Von Sternberg directs this 1928 silent classic starring George Bancroft and Betty Compson. Bancroft plays Bill Roberts, a ship stoker on leave and looking for a good time. He meets his good time just in time, as he rescues Sadie (Compson) from trying to drown herself. What’s Sadie’s problem? She’s a waterfront tramp who is disgusted by her life. The two end up at a seedy bar and proceed to get loaded. Self-esteem issues, a horny sailor, and alcohol don’t mix—believe me, I’ve been to Vegas. In a drunken stupor, Bill and Sadie decide to get married—damn you, Vegas and Jose Cuervo! His gift to the bride: a stolen dress, which I suppose is better than a "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" t-shirt.

Anyway, the next morning Bill scurries out the door, not saying a word to his "wife"—not even something touching like: merci pour la baise—and returns to his ship. After Bill leaves, the ship‘s engineer puts the moves on Sadie. This is too much for his wife and she kills him. The cops blame Sadie but the murdering wife confesses to her crime. Ah, but the stolen clothes land Sadie in court nonetheless. Once aboard ship, Bill realizes he loves Sadie and he decides to return to shore. He goes to court and confesses to stealing the clothes. He gets 60 days and promises Sadie he’ll see her then. If Sadie knows what’s good for her she’ll use those 60 days to get very, very, very far away.

This film is considered Sternberg’s masterpiece. The story itself is not all that believable, but it is entertaining—especially the rollicking good time at the bar. Bancroft and Compson are superb in their roles. In addition, there is an interesting dichotomy between the night and day shots. The night scenes are sensually and romantically shot. Whereas the day scenes seem cold and menacing. Simply put, the film is visually stunning. A good film to watch.

The Crowd (1928) **1/2

We are born just like everyone else, right? So, why do we always think we are "special"? That’s the question director King Vidor indirectly asks us to ponder in this classic 1928 silent social commentary film.

Everyman John Sims (James Murray) is born on July 4, 1900. He passes through his adolescence confidently believing that greatness lies ahead. This confidence is severally shaken when he arrives home one day to find a crowd gathered outside his home. As John ascends the stairs Vidor captures the boy’s true insignificance in a fixed shot from the top of the stairs where John appears as a tiny figure at the bottom of the stairwell. Before reaching his destination John learns that his father has died and he is now expected to be a brave man.

At the age of 21 John decides to head to Manhattan to make his name. On the ferry ride John meets a cynical man who warns him, "You've gotta be good in that town if you want to beat the crowd." After reaching the city John is introduced to New York in King Vidor style. Hustle, bustle, confusion, traffic, large buildings and even larger crowds greet a dizzied John—I mean this literally, as Vidor used a continuous clockwise turning shot to emphasize just how massive and confusing the city can be. John takes am insurance clerk job and finds himself seated with hundreds of other Everymen—this scene is recaptured in Billy Wilder’s The Apartment. How can he distinguish himself from the others? John hopes that he can win $100 for winning a product naming contest and he also attends night school.

He meets his soon-to-be wife Mary (Eleanor Boardman, Vidor’s wife) via a blind date at Coney Island. In a rather quick courtship (1 night) John asks Mary to marry him after seeing an advertisement on the subway that reads: "You furnish the girl, we'll furnish the home!" After honeymooning in Niagara Falls they find themselves living in a cheap apartment right next to the subway. Her family thinks he’s a bum and he doesn’t do much to disprove their doubts about him. He finds fault with everything they have and takes out his frustration on his wife for what they lack—mostly due to his own inadequacy. When she tells him she’s pregnant he swears he will treat her much better and try harder to be a success.

Fast-forward five years and the Sims have a son and a daughter, John has gotten an $8 raise, and he wins a $500 slogan contest. The family is happy for about two seconds and then the daughter is run over by a truck. As his daughter is dying John watches how little his (or any other) life means to the crowd as it noisily continues raging outside his windows. As he rages against the crowd to be quiet a policeman says one of the most salient things ever expressed in silent film: "The world can't stop because your baby's sick."

After his daughter dies John becomes depressed and has a breakdown at work and quits. He then goes from job to job (very quickly) and soon finds himself virtually unemployable. Mary has to become a dressmaker to support the family. Her brothers beg her to abandon John, especially after he turns down their offer of a job. She calls him a quitter and tells him she’d almost rather see him dead than the way he is. John contemplates suicide but lacks the courage to go through with it. Luckily for John his son gives him the courage to try to rebuild his life. He takes a job juggling balls to attract attention to the sign he is wearing—a job he earlier scoffed at in the film as beneath him. When he returns home to tell Mary he’s taken a job he finds that she’s packed up her stuff and is leaving with her brothers. Just as she’s about to leave he offers her some violets and tickets to a variety show. She stays and they go to the theatre, which provides the viewer with one of the most amazing closing shots in silent film. As the family is laughing Vidor uses an overhead trolley shot to pull away from them and show an indistinguishable crowd of laughing faces.

First, let me say Mary was a saint—I would have shoved those violets down his throat. That said, this is one of my favorite silent films of all-time. The camerawork is top-notch and Vidor’s overall vision for this film is stunning. This may have something to do with my love of German Expressionism, because this film was undoubtedly influenced by the work of Fritz Lang and F. W. Murnau. What I find truly exceptional about this film is the overall message that it sends to the viewer: for 99.9% of the population life is tedious, unassuming, and unspectacular. It’s that whole debunking of the childhood fantasy that the world revolves around you. You are a part of the crowd—no more, no less, now deal with it as best you can.

King Vidor was rightly nominated for an Academy Award for Best Director and the film was nominated for Best Unique and Artistic Picture. This is a true silent gem that all film lovers should see.